An Academic Research Coach: An Innovative Approach to Increasing Scholarly Productivity in Medicine
BACKGROUND: Academic faculty who devote most of their time to clinical work often struggle to engage in meaningful scholarly work. They may be disadvantaged by limited research training and limited time. Simply providing senior mentors and biostatistical support has limited effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to increase productivity in scholarly work of hospitalists and internal medicine physicians by integrating an Academic Research Coach into a robust faculty development program.
DESIGN: This was a pre-post quality improvement evaluation.
SETTING: This was conducted at the University of Washington in faculty across three academic-affiliated hospitals and 10 academic-affiliated clinics.
PARTICIPANTS: Participants were hospitalists and internists on faculty in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington.
INTERVENTION: The coach was a 0.50 full time equivalent health services researcher with strong research methods, project implementation, and interpersonal skills. The coach consulted on research, quality improvement, and other scholarship.
MEASUREMENTS: We assessed the number of faculty supported, types of services provided, and numbers of grants, papers, and abstracts submitted and accepted.
RESULTS: The coach consulted with 49 general internal medicine faculty including 30 hospitalists who conducted 63 projects. The coach supported 13 publications, 11 abstracts, four grant submissions, and seven manuscript reviews. Forty-eight faculty in other departments benefited as co-authors.
CONCLUSION: Employing a dedicated health services researcher as part of a faculty development program is an effective way to engage clinically oriented faculty in meaningful scholarship. Key aspects of the program included an accessible and knowledgeable coach and an ongoing marketing strategy.
© 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine
Program Evaluation
To characterize the reach and scope of the program, the coach tracked the number of faculty supported, types of services provided, status of initiated projects, numbers of grants generated, and the dissemination of scholarly products including papers and abstracts. We used these metrics to create summary reports to identify successes and areas for improvement. Monthly meetings between the coach and Division leadership were used to fine-tune the approach.
We surveyed coach clients anonymously to assess their satisfaction with the coach initiative. Using Likert scale questions where 1 = completely disagree and 5 = completely agree, we asked (1) if they would recommend the coach to colleagues, (2) if their work was higher quality because of the coach, (3) if they were overall satisfied with the coach, (4) whether the Division should continue to support the coach, and (5) if the coach’s lack of clinical training negatively affected their experience. This work was considered a quality improvement initiative for which IRB approval was not required.
RESULTS
Over 18 months, the coach supported a 49 Division members including 30 hospitalists and 63 projects. Projects included a wide range of scholarship: medical education research, qualitative research, clinical quality improvement projects, observational studies, and a randomized clinical trial. Many clients (n = 16) used the coach for more than one project. The scope of work included limited support projects (identifying research resource and brainstorming project feasibility) lasting one to two sessions (n = 25), projects with a limited scope (collegial reviews of manuscripts and assistance with IRB submissions) but requiring more than two consultations (n = 24), and ongoing in-depth support projects (contributions on design, data collection, analysis, and manuscript writing) that required three consultations or more (n = 14). The majority of Division members (75%) supported did not have master’s level training in a health services-related area, six had NIH or other national-level funding, and two had small grants funded by local sources prior to providing support. The number of Division faculty on a given project ranged from one to four.
The coach directly supported 13 manuscripts with coach authorship, seven manuscripts without authorship, 11 abstracts, and four grant submissions (Appendix). The coach was a coauthor on all the abstracts and a coinvestigator on the grant applications. Of the 13 publications the coach coauthored, 11 publications have been accepted to peer-reviewed journals and two are currently in the submission process. The types of articles published included one medical evaluation report, one qualitative study, one randomized clinical trial, three quality assessment/improvement reports, and five epidemiologic studies. The types of abstracts included one qualitative report, one systematic review, one randomized clinical trial, two quality improvement projects, two epidemiologic studies, and four medical education projects. Three of four small grants submitted to local and national funders were funded.
The coach’s influence extended beyond the Division. Forty-eight university faculty, fellows, or students not affiliated with general internal medicine benefited from coach coaching: 26 were authors on papers and/or abstracts coauthored by the coach, 17 on manuscripts the coach reviewed without authorship, and five participated in consultations.
The coach found the experience rewarding. She enjoyed working on the methodologic aspects of projects and benefited from being included as coauthor on papers.
Twenty-nine of the 43 faculty (67%) still at the institution responded to the program assessment survey. Faculty strongly agreed that they would recommend the coach to colleagues (average ± standard deviation [SD]: 4.7 ± 0.5), that it improved the quality of their work (4.5 ± 0.9), that they were overall satisfied with the coaching (4.6 ± 0.7), and that the Division should continue to support the coach (4.9 ± 0.4). Faculty did not agree that the lack of clinical training of the coach was a barrier (2.0 ± 1.3).
